The story is important, TORs problem is that it focused the story on the single player instead of the guild, the town or the world.
A game with no story is just a bunch of pointless randomencounters unless you have a Minecraft sandbox where nothing is prebuilt.
A great story can save an average game, but the story needs to be about the entire world. Players should add their own touch to the story in games with sandbox elements of course but MMOs is a group thing, not a single player experience.
Still, story is important and games like UO actually had a rich story.
That's exactly what I was saying. My header was deliberately provocative -- I apologize if it was also misleading. Single-player type stories, with cut-scenes, personal instances, and mary-sue heroics have no place in an MMO. Having a voice actor tell you that you're a special little pony does not make it so.
However, a game world absolutely needs story -- but it needs to be told in a way that acknowledges the fact that the space is being shared by thousands of other players. And within that context, players need the tools to make their own stories.
About #2: Sorry, but thats just "oooh past games have been better" jibber. AFAIK Ultima Online still is running, so if you like that experience, just play it. If you however want more contemporary graphics, well: newer graphics is much more development intensive, thus nobody builds an Ultima Online with upgraded graphics. It just wont yield any profit. Sorry, but you'll have to directly oppose capitalism to get such a game.
I stuck with it for a long time. Eventually I left because the game was a mess. The sandbox elements worked, but it has little else to recommend it.
I would argue with your assumption that sandbox elements equal financial failure. Just because no one has pulled it off, does not mean it can't be done. They said the same thing about airplanes and personal computers.
About #4: A request for sandboxes. Honestly ? After he just established that sandbox are a niche ?
Pure sandboxes are niche when it comes to the core game. Story is a different matter.
Agree almost completly one thing i would like to mention is world Lore is realy important imo its is nice to have back ground and history in a game that sown by NPC and so on, but you shouldnt have a player story set out for you, your story is there for you to find not to walk along a predetermined route .
Again world lore is realy important, the game world history and character history is shown in the game (everquest was realy good with this), but character story like GW2 isnt that great because it makes u feel like u cant make your own story in the game world.
1. We have no right to expect anything. We can speak with our wallets and so far, people don't want 'risk taking games'.
They want something familiar like the next Madden / FIFA / COD / WOW expansion EPIC LEVEL 9000!! etc. It just isn't realistic to expect companies to spend $$$ on risk taking when the market is saying something else.
2. What people like and don't like is up to each person. I make no judgement on that. Who are you to say which aspect of 'MMO' should be focused by the players?
3. Pure themepark game called WoW is making millions. WoW-Clones are making $$$ / profits as well.
Pure Sandbox has EVE-Online and a few niche games. Those too are making $$$ / profit (smaller though).
Seems to me like they are working fine.
4. Once again, what people like and don't like is up to each person. What's the point? The answer is that MMOs are a video game; a disposable entertainment product for a lot of people. Some people like a good story in their MMOs, I am one of them.
5. Players can ask for something different, but I have not seen any action done so the developers know about it as players keep on buying the same thing on a yearly basis.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
1. We have no right to expect anything. We can speak with our wallets and so far, people don't want 'risk taking games'.
They want something familiar like the next Madden / FIFA / COD / WOW expansion EPIC LEVEL 9000!! etc. It just isn't realistic to expect companies to spend $$$ on risk taking when the market is saying something else.
2. What people like and don't like is up to each person. I make no judgement on that. Who are you to say which aspect of 'MMO' should be focused by the players?
3. Pure themepark game called WoW is making millions. WoW-Clones are making $$$ / profits as well.
Pure Sandbox has EVE-Online and a few niche games. Those too are making $$$ / profit (smaller though).
Seems to me like they are working fine.
4. Once again, what people like and don't like is up to each person. What's the point? The answer is that MMOs are a video game; a disposable entertainment product for a lot of people. Some people like a good story in their MMOs, I am one of them.
5. Players can ask for something different, but I have not seen any action done so the developers know about it as players keep on buying the same thing on a yearly basis.
I admire how adamant you can be in you conviction about "the player", when i play different games i tend to notice quite a number of people who do not fit your "fifa/cod/wow/9000" stereotype, just look at Skyrim.
As far as what profitable is and what the market says, it depends on interpretation and people like you make sure that the interpretation constantly shifts in your favor, is 200k people for a 50mil project good or bad, 1m for a 300mil project?
Just remember how we discounted asia subs until wow surpassed the number, when they have suddenly become legit.
This is the same thing, just because wow is just one number and there are several of non mainstream games around 1m subs, we discount them, until one will come along which will have a significant number.
Even McDonalds (which gets bad rep in mmo discussions) does constantly new burgers, salads, and even changes its sortiment based on country, so it is kinda funny to claim "devs know what they are doing, people want always the same". That is the argument of a burned out, cynical person.
5. EVE essentially does this with the whole 'skills' thing and I don't think its a good template. It creates a fairly large level gap between the new players and veterans but now the new players can never 'catch up' with the veterans.
This is a myth. If anything, EVE is one of the easier MMORPGs in which you can be productive, viable in a corp, and equal to veterans (in certain respects) quickly. Because EVE has caps for each skill, if a new player focuses on a specifc set of skills (such as those required to fly a certain type of ship), then that player can fairly quickly gain equal footing to a veteran who flies the same ship.
Contrast that to someone who just starts playing WoW/Rift/Aion etc and wants to compete with level-capped characters in raids and pvp. First they have to get to max level, then they need to run instances or battlegrounds repeatedly to gain the necessary entry-level gear, then they need to run more advanced instaces or rated arenas/battlegrounds to upgrade their gear further. I'm definitely not opposed to this progression scheme, I'm just pointing out that it actually takes longer to "catch up to veterans" in the more traditional MMORPGs than it does with EVE.
They can adjust a game all day, but they can't help the issue between the keyboard and the chair. Played: UO, DAoC, AC, WoW, EVE, TR, WAR, Aion, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, TSW, ESO, Elite:D Play EVE for free for 21 days
1. We have no right to expect anything. We can speak with our wallets and so far, people don't want 'risk taking games'.
They want something familiar like the next Madden / FIFA / COD / WOW expansion EPIC LEVEL 9000!! etc. It just isn't realistic to expect companies to spend $$$ on risk taking when the market is saying something else.
2. What people like and don't like is up to each person. I make no judgement on that. Who are you to say which aspect of 'MMO' should be focused by the players?
3. Pure themepark game called WoW is making millions. WoW-Clones are making $$$ / profits as well.
Pure Sandbox has EVE-Online and a few niche games. Those too are making $$$ / profit (smaller though).
Seems to me like they are working fine.
4. Once again, what people like and don't like is up to each person. What's the point? The answer is that MMOs are a video game; a disposable entertainment product for a lot of people. Some people like a good story in their MMOs, I am one of them.
5. Players can ask for something different, but I have not seen any action done so the developers know about it as players keep on buying the same thing on a yearly basis.
1. people are speaking with their wallets. thats why alot of games wich start out with subcription fees move to F2P because we dont think its good enough to pay a monthly fee.
you cannot compare an MMO to any other genre because an MMO cannot get a sequal (like a CoD franchise) you can only expand it so wanting something familiar is false because you wil keep playing your unending MMO if it would be actually good enough to play it. All these WoW clones would be thriving with sub fees if we wanted more familiar things.
2. What people like and do not like is diffrent yes. What makes an MMO(RPG) an MMO and a FPS a FPS is factual. we come back to the bubble discusion if you want to be in your own special snowflake bubble then go play a single player MMO's should mainly focus on the massivly multiplayer aspect of the game if not why would someone create an MMO, actually it would not even be an MMO without those features.
3. WoW clones are not making alot of profit they are staying alive. thats a whole diffrent thing. Sanbox games like EVE are also staying alive yes but a Game like EVE is not for everyone. not evryone likes spaceships or scifi in general so their market is much much smaller.
4. an MMO disposable? what? MMO's are made with a long life expextancy in mind. People see them as diposable because wlel they jsut are not good enough. more of the same aint good because ultimitly WoW does it all better. on The story. Story and Lore are not the same a MMO can have a rich Lore filled world without any actually progresing story. as long as that world is rich enough or if we develope our own story by being a community wich current day MMO's lack.
5. we keep buying the same thing yes because you want to try it out. people are getting your hopes up by saying certain things. but in the end alot of people unsub and will return to WoW leaving the game to once again fallback onto F2P in order to survive.
Unless you can show me some evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I just don't see what you're seeing. At best, the industry is treading water.
1. We have no right to expect anything. We can speak with our wallets and so far, people don't want 'risk taking games'.
They want something familiar like the next Madden / FIFA / COD / WOW expansion EPIC LEVEL 9000!! etc. It just isn't realistic to expect companies to spend $$$ on risk taking when the market is saying something else.
Just because the AAA publishers are afraid to try something new, it does not mean that there isn't a demand. Pathfinder Online, for example, raised nearly a million dollars on Kickstarter. If that's not "speaking with our wallets," I'm not sure what would qualify.
I'll grant you, no one ever went broke catering to the lowest common denominator -- but it's a leap to say that doing so is the only way to succeed. If we applied your logic to the film industry, no one would make anything but Michael Bay style action movies.
2. What people like and don't like is up to each person. I make no judgement on that. Who are you to say which aspect of 'MMO' should be focused by the players?
I'm nobody. I just have an opinion and a forum password. Same as you. Based on the responses here (and over at MMO Champion), I'd say at least some people agree with me. If you don't, that's okay.
3. Pure themepark game called WoW is making millions. WoW-Clones are making $$$ / profits as well.
WoW is fine. I'm not bashing WoW. It is what it is and a lot of people still enjoy it. WoW-clones, however, are lazy design that can never hope for more than Blizzard's table scraps. Regardless of whether they make money (I'm sure some of them do), there are a lot of people who want something different.
4. Once again, what people like and don't like is up to each person. What's the point? The answer is that MMOs are a video game; a disposable entertainment product for a lot of people. Some people like a good story in their MMOs, I am one of them.
Your preferences are yours. Some people share them, some don't. I find scripted stories in MMOs to be empty and (to use your word) disposable experiences. MMOs are capable of so much more and it bothers me that no one is even trying.
5. Players can ask for something different, but I have not seen any action done so the developers know about it as players keep on buying the same thing on a yearly basis.
I'm not suggesting that you can't play your preferred type of game. All I want is a chance to play mine. If the status quo works for you, then great. Go nuts.
I'm just pointing out that it actually takes longer to "catch up to veterans" in the more traditional MMORPGs than it does with EVE.
No, you can't ever catch up to vetrans in Eve, ever -- the design of the system assures that. You can, after a few weeks, perhaps be halfway effective cannon fodder, a role no one in their right mind really aspires to but somehow keeps getting trotted out as "proof" that newbies can be useful, but you can't be nearly as effective as vetran for years, and you can never catch up or exceed them.
In most MMOs you can be up to current conent in a few weeks, a month or two at most. You can be at the exact same level as any other player -- ignoring, for the moment, issues of individual skill and such -- a few weeks or months past that. Beyond that, most MMOs have inherent resets, usually at expacs, points where everyone is essentially put on an even footing again and someone just starting out is at essentially the same level as a multi-year vet.
Eve has no such mechanism, the impossibility of newbies catching up to vets is inherent in the design.
1. Listening to players is one side, picking the right ides is the tricky part. The main problem in most of the MMOs is lack of a public test server. EVE does this the right way, there's a public test server you can join and comment on the features before they hit production. However it is also a prime example of developers not listening to feedback.
Huh? Most major MMOs have a PTS, don't they? I know WoW does, ToR does, Rift does, even Fallen Earth does. Pretty common practice, not that it's really clear how much good it does in the end.
As far as listening to the playerbase, the problem is always what part of the playerbase do you listen to? I think the biggest mistake that gets made is to listen to that part of the playerbase that frequents the forums, I've seen more than one MMO get damaged that way. It's understandable enough, the forum goers tend to be passionate and loud, and it's relatively easy to fall into the trap of thinking they're a representative sample of your playerbase when generally they're anything but.
I would add about the storyline/lore. I personally dont give a flip about a games storyline. It does nothing for me to hear/read "You are now the exalted one" etc. I played UO at release and for years, and the greatest thing about that game was the players were the story. Old friends and i still occasionally bring up our stories from that game. That was an MMO, everything since then has been single player games with people in it. One thing i liked about UO that is long gone is the absence of global chat. The chat bubbles added a very personal feel, and people were less likely to get mouthy because there was consequence. Not this, "Suck a dick" from someone somewhere in the game. That game had so much to do, it was unreal. Also as far as endgame went. It didnt take that long for a player to catch up to vets, so they could be a threat. However, it was more about what you could afford to lose. Other games i have enjoyed ....EQ, Daoc(pre Toa), Vanilla Wow.
As far as listening to the playerbase, the problem is always what part of the playerbase do you listen to?
It's easy to conclude if the Other Guys (the ones you consider the Enemy) are winning, despite the clear and obvious superiority of Your Side, then it must be because the Devs Just Don't Listen.
The oldest forum shell game there is.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
No, you can't ever catch up to vetrans in Eve, ever -- the design of the system assures that.
No, that is a myth perpetuated by haters. It all depends on what you want to do in the game. Because skills are capped, you can focus on certain skills to fly certain ships so you can be as good as a vet who has played for years. (Granted, you won't have as wide a skill set as a vet, but you can be as good at specific roles/careers.)
They can adjust a game all day, but they can't help the issue between the keyboard and the chair. Played: UO, DAoC, AC, WoW, EVE, TR, WAR, Aion, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, TSW, ESO, Elite:D Play EVE for free for 21 days
I liked your post OP, but I have one major bone of contention -- #2. I get that a lot of you have wonderful memories of Ultima, and that people were total jerks to each other and it was great and so on and so forth (by the same token, I have 'memories' of how fun school was, even though the overriding vast majority of it was nothing but ritual and routine so dreadful that if I had been given -any- other alternative at the time, I would have dropped it on a dime). I'm glad it helped form a strong sense of concern about MMO's for you.
But even the jerk players of yesteryear aren't the ones we have today, nor were they ever so numerous. They're not just a conglomeration of primarily 'that guy's from TT rpg's, either. Instead, they're a full gamut of jerks in every conceivable stripe, multiplying over and over again as yet another wave of people come trundling into the MMO sphere.
So while I agree that grouping should be made more beneficial and that community should be focused on, I'm going to take a stand and say no to jerks. Ban them all. Simply put, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for there to be a group of jerks ruining the gameplay of others. It doesn't make a person more hardcore for 'surviving' it, it doesn't improve the gameplay one whit. It simply costs players who could be good friends, groupmates, and guildies so that the ones who will -never- be good friends, groupmates, and guildies can get their giggles over how kewl they are.
Let's talk about the assumptions we all make about MMOs that are suffocating the genre. I love MMOs -- I've been playing these games for a long, long time. But it's suffering from a serious case of stagnation. If things don't change, I see MMOs going the way of the Adventure Game.
Assumption #2 Players are the problem: I cut my teeth on Ultima Online, a game where players brazenly tormented one another and exploited even the smallest bug. It was one of the best gaming experiences of my life. You never knew what was going to happen when you logged on, because human beings are unpredictable. Note, I wasn't a PvPer in those days -- in fact, I spent a lot of time complaining about player killers. But I loved the spontaneity -- the sense of player agency. There were a thousand ways to play that game, and someone was always coming up with a new way to turn things to their advantage. It was far from perfect, but like many other gamers, I was hooked.
Assumption #4 Story is important: After the failure of Star Wars: the Old Republic and The Secret World, I'm amazed that the takeaway seems to be that the subscription model is the problem. Subscriptions are fine -- players will pony up for a game if they think it's worth the money. The problem with both games is the notion that voice-acted cut scenes are the magic bullet for a smash hit MMO. If we, as gamers, want this sort of thing we'll play single-player games. They still make those.
Being the Chosen One in an MMO is just dumb, because there are 500 other Chosen Ones pouring out of the same instance right behind you. Context, not story, is what we need. Make the world and its back-story live, and give the players the tools and freedom to create their own story.
Very nice topic.
I'd agree with everything but the 2 you posted above.
#2 Players are the problem: Well, they aren't the problem, but perhaps it should be rephrased to say players are part of the problem. After reading these forums for a while, I think many of us have seen poster after poster reinforcing poor game design, and then seen more posters complaining about it a year later. This comes back to the topic of 'developers should listen to players'.
As you point out, most players haven't a clue as to what they want. They just know it when they see it. However, this doesn't stop players from wielding their opinions like a banhammer. Equally bashing in the good ideas with the bad. This also doesn't help developers who are trying to make games for us. A great designer can tell good game design from bad, But that distinction gets blurrier, and blurrier when making games for other people. Especially 100s of thousands of other people all at once. To get better games, players need to get more constructive & coherant about what they want. Furthermore, people need to support good games when they see them. A lot of people don't. They take the good and go 'ya that was fun', and don't give it a second thought. And we complain about everything. It's rare to see much in the way of positive feedback when it comes to games, unless the game is far too old to do anything about it.
#4 Story is important: Story actually is important. Very important. This gets shown again and again with every new game. This doesn't mean that games have to be based around a scripted storyline. What it does mean, is that games have to pay attention to this. Even in games like UO, back when MMOs weren't paying that much attention to story, story was important. In the case of games like UO (I know, short list) there are important story elements. Many of which are player-driven. A lot of what this comes down to is how believable the game world is, and whether or not players have clear goals within the world. Whether you enjoy more open games or not, the majority of players need direction, clear direction, or they simply won't play a game. A lot of people also claim they want more open games, but get frustrated if they have to think too much about what they are doing.
So while I agree that grouping should be made more beneficial and that community should be focused on, I'm going to take a stand and say no to jerks. Ban them all. Simply put, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for there to be a group of jerks ruining the gameplay of others. It doesn't make a person more hardcore for 'surviving' it, it doesn't improve the gameplay one whit. It simply costs players who could be good friends, groupmates, and guildies so that the ones who will -never- be good friends, groupmates, and guildies can get their giggles over how kewl they are.
100% agree.
My point in #2 is that the fear of jerks has led game developers to straightjacket more constructive forms of player interaction. I don't believe that any form of griefing should be tolerated.
No, you can't ever catch up to vetrans in Eve, ever -- the design of the system assures that.
No, that is a myth perpetuated by haters. It all depends on what you want to do in the game. Because skills are capped, you can focus on certain skills to fly certain ships so you can be as good as a vet who has played for years. (Granted, you won't have as wide a skill set as a vet, but you can be as good at specific roles/careers.)
EVE is not a solo game. If you want to over take the Vet, simply out number him 5 to 1. Even 2:1 in many cases. Ask anyone who lost ships to a Falcon/ Drake combo. Doesn't matter if you have 200 million SP and a 5 billion ISK fit. You are going down.
Blob up and hit the I-Win button.
-
On main topic, it can be condensed. MMO's are not One size fits all. WoW was a fluke. Redefine good and pick a niche or burn in a fail fire.
So while I agree that grouping should be made more beneficial and that community should be focused on, I'm going to take a stand and say no to jerks. Ban them all. Simply put, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for there to be a group of jerks ruining the gameplay of others. It doesn't make a person more hardcore for 'surviving' it, it doesn't improve the gameplay one whit. It simply costs players who could be good friends, groupmates, and guildies so that the ones who will -never- be good friends, groupmates, and guildies can get their giggles over how kewl they are.
100% agree.
My point in #2 is that the fear of jerks has led game developers to straightjacket more constructive forms of player interaction. I don't believe that any form of griefing should be tolerated.
Problem is, this isn't a real solution. What exactly is a 'jerk', and would you honestly want a game in which everyone who did something mean was banned? What happens if you have a bad day, do something that might be considered 'mean' and get banned for it?
The sad truth for designers is that games are going to have jerks whether you like it or not. There are more trolls in all games now, than there have ever been. You simply can't get rid of crappy people. It doesn't matter how well a game is designed, no game will cure the human condition. What this means, is that developers are forced to design games around this fact.
Problem is, this isn't a real solution. What exactly is a 'jerk', and would you honestly want a game in which everyone who did something mean was banned? What happens if you have a bad day, do something that might be considered 'mean' and get banned for it?
The sad truth for designers is that games are going to have jerks whether you like it or not. There are more trolls in all games now, than there have ever been. You simply can't get rid of crappy people. It doesn't matter how well a game is designed, no game will cure the human condition. What this means, is that developers are forced to design games around this fact.
I don't remember calling for a game where people get banned for being grouchy. There are other solutions. One example was proposed on the developer blog for Pathfinder Online: EBay style ratings for players. It's only one possibility, and I'm sure there are others.
There's a lot of room between letting players torture one another and treating them like kindergartners. Unfortunately, those are the only two approaches that have been tried.
Comments
That's exactly what I was saying. My header was deliberately provocative -- I apologize if it was also misleading. Single-player type stories, with cut-scenes, personal instances, and mary-sue heroics have no place in an MMO. Having a voice actor tell you that you're a special little pony does not make it so.
However, a game world absolutely needs story -- but it needs to be told in a way that acknowledges the fact that the space is being shared by thousands of other players. And within that context, players need the tools to make their own stories.
I stuck with it for a long time. Eventually I left because the game was a mess. The sandbox elements worked, but it has little else to recommend it.
I would argue with your assumption that sandbox elements equal financial failure. Just because no one has pulled it off, does not mean it can't be done. They said the same thing about airplanes and personal computers.
Pure sandboxes are niche when it comes to the core game. Story is a different matter.
agree with the op on every point.
/clap
Agreed and signed.
Agree almost completly one thing i would like to mention is world Lore is realy important imo its is nice to have back ground and history in a game that sown by NPC and so on, but you shouldnt have a player story set out for you, your story is there for you to find not to walk along a predetermined route
.
Again world lore is realy important, the game world history and character history is shown in the game (everquest was realy good with this), but character story like GW2 isnt that great because it makes u feel like u cant make your own story in the game world.
Growth was there in 2011.
1. We have no right to expect anything. We can speak with our wallets and so far, people don't want 'risk taking games'.
They want something familiar like the next Madden / FIFA / COD / WOW expansion EPIC LEVEL 9000!! etc. It just isn't realistic to expect companies to spend $$$ on risk taking when the market is saying something else.
2. What people like and don't like is up to each person. I make no judgement on that. Who are you to say which aspect of 'MMO' should be focused by the players?
3. Pure themepark game called WoW is making millions. WoW-Clones are making $$$ / profits as well.
Pure Sandbox has EVE-Online and a few niche games. Those too are making $$$ / profit (smaller though).
Seems to me like they are working fine.
4. Once again, what people like and don't like is up to each person. What's the point? The answer is that MMOs are a video game; a disposable entertainment product for a lot of people. Some people like a good story in their MMOs, I am one of them.
5. Players can ask for something different, but I have not seen any action done so the developers know about it as players keep on buying the same thing on a yearly basis.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I admire how adamant you can be in you conviction about "the player", when i play different games i tend to notice quite a number of people who do not fit your "fifa/cod/wow/9000" stereotype, just look at Skyrim.
As far as what profitable is and what the market says, it depends on interpretation and people like you make sure that the interpretation constantly shifts in your favor, is 200k people for a 50mil project good or bad, 1m for a 300mil project?
Just remember how we discounted asia subs until wow surpassed the number, when they have suddenly become legit.
This is the same thing, just because wow is just one number and there are several of non mainstream games around 1m subs, we discount them, until one will come along which will have a significant number.
Even McDonalds (which gets bad rep in mmo discussions) does constantly new burgers, salads, and even changes its sortiment based on country, so it is kinda funny to claim "devs know what they are doing, people want always the same". That is the argument of a burned out, cynical person.
Flame on!
This is a myth. If anything, EVE is one of the easier MMORPGs in which you can be productive, viable in a corp, and equal to veterans (in certain respects) quickly. Because EVE has caps for each skill, if a new player focuses on a specifc set of skills (such as those required to fly a certain type of ship), then that player can fairly quickly gain equal footing to a veteran who flies the same ship.
Contrast that to someone who just starts playing WoW/Rift/Aion etc and wants to compete with level-capped characters in raids and pvp. First they have to get to max level, then they need to run instances or battlegrounds repeatedly to gain the necessary entry-level gear, then they need to run more advanced instaces or rated arenas/battlegrounds to upgrade their gear further. I'm definitely not opposed to this progression scheme, I'm just pointing out that it actually takes longer to "catch up to veterans" in the more traditional MMORPGs than it does with EVE.
They can adjust a game all day, but they can't help the issue between the keyboard and the chair.
Played: UO, DAoC, AC, WoW, EVE, TR, WAR, Aion, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, TSW, ESO, Elite:D
Play EVE for free for 21 days
1. people are speaking with their wallets. thats why alot of games wich start out with subcription fees move to F2P because we dont think its good enough to pay a monthly fee.
you cannot compare an MMO to any other genre because an MMO cannot get a sequal (like a CoD franchise) you can only expand it so wanting something familiar is false because you wil keep playing your unending MMO if it would be actually good enough to play it. All these WoW clones would be thriving with sub fees if we wanted more familiar things.
2. What people like and do not like is diffrent yes. What makes an MMO(RPG) an MMO and a FPS a FPS is factual. we come back to the bubble discusion if you want to be in your own special snowflake bubble then go play a single player MMO's should mainly focus on the massivly multiplayer aspect of the game if not why would someone create an MMO, actually it would not even be an MMO without those features.
3. WoW clones are not making alot of profit they are staying alive. thats a whole diffrent thing. Sanbox games like EVE are also staying alive yes but a Game like EVE is not for everyone. not evryone likes spaceships or scifi in general so their market is much much smaller.
4. an MMO disposable? what? MMO's are made with a long life expextancy in mind. People see them as diposable because wlel they jsut are not good enough. more of the same aint good because ultimitly WoW does it all better. on The story. Story and Lore are not the same a MMO can have a rich Lore filled world without any actually progresing story. as long as that world is rich enough or if we develope our own story by being a community wich current day MMO's lack.
5. we keep buying the same thing yes because you want to try it out. people are getting your hopes up by saying certain things. but in the end alot of people unsub and will return to WoW leaving the game to once again fallback onto F2P in order to survive.
Unless you can show me some evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I just don't see what you're seeing. At best, the industry is treading water.
Just because the AAA publishers are afraid to try something new, it does not mean that there isn't a demand. Pathfinder Online, for example, raised nearly a million dollars on Kickstarter. If that's not "speaking with our wallets," I'm not sure what would qualify.
I'll grant you, no one ever went broke catering to the lowest common denominator -- but it's a leap to say that doing so is the only way to succeed. If we applied your logic to the film industry, no one would make anything but Michael Bay style action movies.
I'm nobody. I just have an opinion and a forum password. Same as you. Based on the responses here (and over at MMO Champion), I'd say at least some people agree with me. If you don't, that's okay.
WoW is fine. I'm not bashing WoW. It is what it is and a lot of people still enjoy it. WoW-clones, however, are lazy design that can never hope for more than Blizzard's table scraps. Regardless of whether they make money (I'm sure some of them do), there are a lot of people who want something different.
Your preferences are yours. Some people share them, some don't. I find scripted stories in MMOs to be empty and (to use your word) disposable experiences. MMOs are capable of so much more and it bothers me that no one is even trying.
I'm not suggesting that you can't play your preferred type of game. All I want is a chance to play mine. If the status quo works for you, then great. Go nuts.
No, you can't ever catch up to vetrans in Eve, ever -- the design of the system assures that. You can, after a few weeks, perhaps be halfway effective cannon fodder, a role no one in their right mind really aspires to but somehow keeps getting trotted out as "proof" that newbies can be useful, but you can't be nearly as effective as vetran for years, and you can never catch up or exceed them.
In most MMOs you can be up to current conent in a few weeks, a month or two at most. You can be at the exact same level as any other player -- ignoring, for the moment, issues of individual skill and such -- a few weeks or months past that. Beyond that, most MMOs have inherent resets, usually at expacs, points where everyone is essentially put on an even footing again and someone just starting out is at essentially the same level as a multi-year vet.
Eve has no such mechanism, the impossibility of newbies catching up to vets is inherent in the design.
Huh? Most major MMOs have a PTS, don't they? I know WoW does, ToR does, Rift does, even Fallen Earth does. Pretty common practice, not that it's really clear how much good it does in the end.
As far as listening to the playerbase, the problem is always what part of the playerbase do you listen to? I think the biggest mistake that gets made is to listen to that part of the playerbase that frequents the forums, I've seen more than one MMO get damaged that way. It's understandable enough, the forum goers tend to be passionate and loud, and it's relatively easy to fall into the trap of thinking they're a representative sample of your playerbase when generally they're anything but.
Good posts.
I would add about the storyline/lore. I personally dont give a flip about a games storyline. It does nothing for me to hear/read "You are now the exalted one" etc. I played UO at release and for years, and the greatest thing about that game was the players were the story. Old friends and i still occasionally bring up our stories from that game. That was an MMO, everything since then has been single player games with people in it. One thing i liked about UO that is long gone is the absence of global chat. The chat bubbles added a very personal feel, and people were less likely to get mouthy because there was consequence. Not this, "Suck a dick" from someone somewhere in the game. That game had so much to do, it was unreal. Also as far as endgame went. It didnt take that long for a player to catch up to vets, so they could be a threat. However, it was more about what you could afford to lose. Other games i have enjoyed ....EQ, Daoc(pre Toa), Vanilla Wow.
Games i have played just grasping at straws...
Aoc, DF, Vanguard, EQ2, TSW, Warhammer, Rift, Eve, Aion, GW2.
It's easy to conclude if the Other Guys (the ones you consider the Enemy) are winning, despite the clear and obvious superiority of Your Side, then it must be because the Devs Just Don't Listen.
The oldest forum shell game there is.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The end game piece can be fixed by not allowing players to progress faster then X amount over Y time.
Its annoying, sure, but it solves the end game mindset, allowing players to breath and smell the roses.
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
No, that is a myth perpetuated by haters. It all depends on what you want to do in the game. Because skills are capped, you can focus on certain skills to fly certain ships so you can be as good as a vet who has played for years. (Granted, you won't have as wide a skill set as a vet, but you can be as good at specific roles/careers.)
They can adjust a game all day, but they can't help the issue between the keyboard and the chair.
Played: UO, DAoC, AC, WoW, EVE, TR, WAR, Aion, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, TSW, ESO, Elite:D
Play EVE for free for 21 days
I liked your post OP, but I have one major bone of contention -- #2. I get that a lot of you have wonderful memories of Ultima, and that people were total jerks to each other and it was great and so on and so forth (by the same token, I have 'memories' of how fun school was, even though the overriding vast majority of it was nothing but ritual and routine so dreadful that if I had been given -any- other alternative at the time, I would have dropped it on a dime). I'm glad it helped form a strong sense of concern about MMO's for you.
But even the jerk players of yesteryear aren't the ones we have today, nor were they ever so numerous. They're not just a conglomeration of primarily 'that guy's from TT rpg's, either. Instead, they're a full gamut of jerks in every conceivable stripe, multiplying over and over again as yet another wave of people come trundling into the MMO sphere.
So while I agree that grouping should be made more beneficial and that community should be focused on, I'm going to take a stand and say no to jerks. Ban them all. Simply put, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for there to be a group of jerks ruining the gameplay of others. It doesn't make a person more hardcore for 'surviving' it, it doesn't improve the gameplay one whit. It simply costs players who could be good friends, groupmates, and guildies so that the ones who will -never- be good friends, groupmates, and guildies can get their giggles over how kewl they are.
Very nice topic.
I'd agree with everything but the 2 you posted above.
#2 Players are the problem: Well, they aren't the problem, but perhaps it should be rephrased to say players are part of the problem. After reading these forums for a while, I think many of us have seen poster after poster reinforcing poor game design, and then seen more posters complaining about it a year later. This comes back to the topic of 'developers should listen to players'.
As you point out, most players haven't a clue as to what they want. They just know it when they see it. However, this doesn't stop players from wielding their opinions like a banhammer. Equally bashing in the good ideas with the bad. This also doesn't help developers who are trying to make games for us. A great designer can tell good game design from bad, But that distinction gets blurrier, and blurrier when making games for other people. Especially 100s of thousands of other people all at once. To get better games, players need to get more constructive & coherant about what they want. Furthermore, people need to support good games when they see them. A lot of people don't. They take the good and go 'ya that was fun', and don't give it a second thought. And we complain about everything. It's rare to see much in the way of positive feedback when it comes to games, unless the game is far too old to do anything about it.
#4 Story is important: Story actually is important. Very important. This gets shown again and again with every new game. This doesn't mean that games have to be based around a scripted storyline. What it does mean, is that games have to pay attention to this. Even in games like UO, back when MMOs weren't paying that much attention to story, story was important. In the case of games like UO (I know, short list) there are important story elements. Many of which are player-driven. A lot of what this comes down to is how believable the game world is, and whether or not players have clear goals within the world. Whether you enjoy more open games or not, the majority of players need direction, clear direction, or they simply won't play a game. A lot of people also claim they want more open games, but get frustrated if they have to think too much about what they are doing.
100% agree.
My point in #2 is that the fear of jerks has led game developers to straightjacket more constructive forms of player interaction. I don't believe that any form of griefing should be tolerated.
EVE is not a solo game. If you want to over take the Vet, simply out number him 5 to 1. Even 2:1 in many cases. Ask anyone who lost ships to a Falcon/ Drake combo. Doesn't matter if you have 200 million SP and a 5 billion ISK fit. You are going down.
Blob up and hit the I-Win button.
-
On main topic, it can be condensed. MMO's are not One size fits all. WoW was a fluke. Redefine good and pick a niche or burn in a fail fire.
Problem is, this isn't a real solution. What exactly is a 'jerk', and would you honestly want a game in which everyone who did something mean was banned? What happens if you have a bad day, do something that might be considered 'mean' and get banned for it?
The sad truth for designers is that games are going to have jerks whether you like it or not. There are more trolls in all games now, than there have ever been. You simply can't get rid of crappy people. It doesn't matter how well a game is designed, no game will cure the human condition. What this means, is that developers are forced to design games around this fact.
My word.
There is intelligence in the mmorpg.com community!
I strongly disagree with point #1. Plenty fo examples of not listening to players and being a failure.
I have to mildly disagree with point #4 since there are plenty of players who feel strongly about that point and Genre matters to them.
Point #2 is a bit harder to determine as there are too many variables at work or it should be a wider topic.
Totally agree with points 3 and 5.
Players can come from all over the spectrum and its likely that in trying to make a game for everyone the result is a game that satisfies no one.
Actually, I think we agree on everything.
I don't remember calling for a game where people get banned for being grouchy. There are other solutions. One example was proposed on the developer blog for Pathfinder Online: EBay style ratings for players. It's only one possibility, and I'm sure there are others.
There's a lot of room between letting players torture one another and treating them like kindergartners. Unfortunately, those are the only two approaches that have been tried.